AMANDEEP DILIP ARORA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6689/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 October 2018AY 2010-112 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the CIT(A)'s findings after considering the available material.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 25,65,500 under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee's contention that the source was from withdrawals from the same bank was rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits is justified. Whether the assessee's explanation for the source of cash deposits was sufficient.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur-DR
Hearing: 11/10/2018Pronounced: 17/10/2018

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14/08/2014 of CIT(A)-29, Mumbai for assessment year (AY ) 2010-11.

2.The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.25,65,000.00 by CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer (A.O) u/s. 68 of the Act.

3.At the outset we would like to mention that at the time when the case was called up for hearing neither the assessee nor his Authorised Representative (A.R) was present to attend the hearing nor any application for adjournment was received. We note from order sheet entries that case of the assessee had been adjourned four times prior to this date and on none of the dates neither the assessee nor his AR attended the proceedings despite service of notice through RPAD. Initially the case was fixed for hearing on 12/06/2017 and thereafter adjourned to 16/10/2017, 23/04/2018 and to 06/09/2018. From the conduct of the assessee it is clear that assessee is not very interested in pursuing the appeal. We are, therefore, proceeding to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after hearing the ld. DR. 4.The facts in brief are that the AO made an addition u/s. 68 of the IT Act to the tune of Rs.25,65,500/- towards cash deposited by the assessee during the Financial year into his bank account as apparent from ITS details for the reason that the assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposits into bank while the AO brushed aside the contentions of the assessee that the source of the cash is out of withdrawal from the same bank.

5.After perusing the order of CIT(A) and hearing the ld. DR, we observe that CIT(A) has passed the appellate order after taking into account the contentions of the assessee as made during the appellate proceedings. Now there is no material before us which could force us to take a decision in variance to the decision of CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any reason to deviate from the findings of ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) and accordingly uphold the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

6.In the result appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th of October, 2018.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →